Podcasts about kurt g

Eliott Edge revisits his first book, Three Essays in Virtual Reality, while giving us a sneak preview of his thinking for his upcoming opus on Simulation theory. Edge is a critically-acclaimed author, artist, and international speaker. Edge has published and presented through The Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, The University of Melbourne, Stevens Institute of Technology, Anthology Film Archives, The C.G. Jung Center, The Fenris Wolf, The Museum of Computer Arts, VRTO, Block Seoul, and Disinformation.Names cited:Ayn Rand, Bob Monroe, Nick Bostrom, Carlos Castaneda, Charles Eisenstein, Chris Anderson, Daniel Dennett, David Graeber, Elon Musk, Frank Zappa, Jeffrey Epstein, John Ellis, Kurt Gödel, Lawrence Krauss, Nick Land, Peter Thiel, Rupert Sheldrake, Susan Blackmore, Thomas Campbell, Walter Kirn, Zoltan Istvan Team Human is proudly sponsored by Everyone's Earth.Learn more about Everyone's Earth: https://everyonesearth.com/Change Diapers: https://changediapers.com/Cobi Dryer Sheets: https://cobidryersheets.com/Use the code “rush10” to receive 10% off of Cobi Dryer sheets: https://cobidryersheets.com/Support Team Human on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/teamhumanFollow Team Human with Douglas Rushkoff:Instagram: https:/www.instagram.com/douglasrushkoffBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/rushkoff.comGet bonus content on Patreon: patreon.com/teamhuman Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Part 1 Metamagical Themas by Douglas R. Hofstadter Summary"Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern" is a collection of essays by Douglas R. Hofstadter, published in 1985. The book explores a variety of themes related to consciousness, creativity, and the nature of patterns found in human thought and culture. Here are some key aspects of the book's content:Patterns and Symmetries: Hofstadter delves into the concept of patterns, emphasizing how they manifest not only in mathematics and art but also in human cognition and language. He introduces the idea that many intellectual phenomena can be seen as instances of underlying patterns that recur across different domains.Self-Reference and Strange Loops: A significant portion of the book discusses self-reference as a cognitive phenomenon. Hofstadter introduces the notion of "strange loops," which are recursive structures that can create a sense of self-awareness and consciousness, exemplified in his earlier work, "Gödel, Escher, Bach."Fine-Tuning of Human Thought: The essays investigate how human minds create, recognize, and manipulate patterns. Hofstadter discusses the cognitive processes involved in understanding abstract concepts, highlighting the role of analogies and metaphors in shaping thought.The Nature of Consciousness: Hofstadter engages with questions about what consciousness is, how it arises, and its implications for understanding the mind. He champions the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex interplay of simpler cognitive processes.Interconnectedness of Disciplines: The book celebrates the interconnectedness of various fields, linking mathematics, computer science, linguistics, and philosophy. Hofstadter uses examples from these disciplines to illustrate his theories about mind and pattern.Exploration of Creative Thinking: Hofstadter discusses creativity as a form of pattern recognition and generation, illustrating how new ideas arise from the manipulation of existing structures. He emphasizes the importance of playfulness and exploration in the creative process.Cultural Reflections: A recurring theme is the relationship between culture and cognition. Hofstadter examines how cultural artifacts and shared knowledge influence individual thought processes.Overall, "Metamagical Themas" serves as a philosophical inquiry into the nature of thought and the underlying structures that shape our understanding of reality. Through a diverse range of topics, Hofstadter invites readers to reflect on the complexity and beauty of human cognition.Part 2 Metamagical Themas AuthorDouglas R. Hofstadter is an American cognitive scientist best known for his works in the fields of cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and philosophy of mind. He was born on February 15, 1945, and is perhaps most famous for his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (1979), which explores deep connections between the works of mathematician Kurt Gödel, artist M.C. Escher, and composer Johann Sebastian Bach. Metamagical ThemasMetamagical Themas: A Quantum Look at Funny Paper was published in 1985. The book is a collection of Hofstadter's essays that delve into various themes including mathematics, cognitive science, and philosophical issues. It is noted for its engaging writing style and explores complex topics in an accessible way, often combined with humor and playfulness. Other Notable WorksHofstadter has authored and edited several influential books, including:Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (1979) His most famous work, exploring patterns and connections across different fields.Metamagical Themas: A Quantum Look at Funny Paper (1985) A collection of essays reflecting on diverse topics.The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul (1981, co-edited) An anthology

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

In Episode 37 of The Classical Circuit, host Ella Lee talks to German baritone Benjamin Appl about collaborating with György Kurtág, and honouring his friend and mentor Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau in his centenary year. He also discusses the vulnerability that comes with putting deeply personal projects out into the world, the future of art song, and having less chances to fail once out of 'rising star' territory.-------------------Benjamin's links:Lines of Life: Schubert and KurtágFor Dieter: The Past and FutureWebsiteFacebookInstagram-------------------Follow The Classical Circuit on InstagramDid you enjoy this episode? If so, ratings and follows help a lot with visibility, if you have a spare moment... *bats eyelashes*No offence taken if not.--------------------Music: François Couperin - Le Tic-Toc-Choc ou Les MaillotinsPerformed by Daniel Lebhardt--------------------The Classical Circuit is made by Ella Lee (producer by trade, pianist at heart). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Çetin Ünsalan'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İşte Bunu Konuşalım programına Kurt Gürler Hukuk Bürosu Kıdemli Ortak Avukat İzzet Gürler ve Kurt Gürler Hukuk Bürosu Yönetici Ortağı Avukat Özlem Kurt konuk oldu.

Çetin Ünsalan'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İşte Bunu Konuşalım programına Kurt Gürler Hukuk Bürosu Kıdemli Ortak Avukat İzzet Gürler ve Kurt Gürler Hukuk Bürosu Yönetici Ortağı Avukat Özlem Kurt konuk oldu.

Bariton Benjamin Appl arbeitet schon lange mit György Kurtág zusammen. Jetzt hat Appl ein neues Album veröffentlicht, der 99-jährige Komponist sitzt sogar selbst am Klavier.

The baritone Benjamin Appl has recorded an album for Alpha that combines the music of György Kurtág with that of Franz Schubert. 'Lines of Life: Schubert & Kurtág' is the result of a long process that started with Kurtág choosing the singer for this unique project and working with him on the music, and finally producing the recording - and even playing the piano for Appl in two songs that close the programme. James Jolly met up with Benjamin Appl – a former Gramophone Young Artist of the Year – to talk about the album, but also about another recording that's on the horizon, his tribute to his teacher, and one of the great Lieder singers of the post-war period, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, the 100th anniversary of whose birth falls in May. This Gramophone Podcast is given in association with Wigmore Hall

György Kurtág ist der Meister der komplexen Reduktion. Und einer der skrupulösesten Komponisten aller Zeiten. «Eigentlich weiss ich nicht, wie ich komponiere», sagt er. «Manchmal habe ich so Lähmungen. Nicht nur Monate, sogar jahrelang. Und in dieser Zeit weiss ich gar nicht, wie man komponiert. Das heisst, ich kann es nicht. Ich kann ein Stück nicht anfangen, wenn ich will. Nur, wenn es will.» Am 19. Februar wird Kurtág 99 Jahre alt. Daher widmen wir ihm die Musik unserer Zeit. Mit Interviewausschnitten. Mit einem Workshop, den er vor 15 Jahren gegeben hat und der deutlich macht, wie detailversessen Kurtag ist. Im zweiten Teil der Sendung seine Oper «Fin de partie», die er mit über 90 Jahren geschrieben hat.

Çetin Ünsalan'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu Reel Piyasalar programına Kurt Gürler Partners Yönetici Ortağı Avukat Özlem Kurt ve Kurt Gürler Partners Kıdemli Ortağı Avukat İzzet Gürler konuk oldu.

Çetin Ünsalan'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu Reel Piyasalar programına Kurt Gürler Partners Yönetici Ortağı Avukat Özlem Kurt ve Kurt Gürler Partners Kıdemli Ortağı Avukat İzzet Gürler konuk oldu.

Der letzte «Samschtig-Jass» im Jassjahr 2024 steht ganz im Zeichen der Jass-Champions. Die vier besten Jasserinnen und Jasser des zu Ende gehenden Jahres spielen um den Jackpot 2024 – als Glücksbringerin amtet Christa Rigozzi und die Band Stubete Gäng sorgt für die passende Silvesterstimmung. Moderatorin Christa Rigozzi reist für den «Samschtig-Jass» extra aus dem Tessin ins winterliche Oberarth und drückt den vier besten Jasserinnen und Jassern des bald zu Ende gehenden Jahres in der Horseshoe Braui die Daumen. Dabei spielt sie Glücksfee und Croupière zugleich, bestimmt jeweils per Roulette die Trumpffarbe und wagt zusammen mit Gastgeberin Fabienne Gyr einen Ausblick ins neue Jahr 2025. Michel Affolter aus Herzogenbuchsee (BE) mit gerademal fünf Differenzpunkten, Kurt Gäggeler aus Stettlen (BE) mit sechs, Marcel Stadelmann aus Escholzmatt (LU) mit sieben sowie Esther Moser aus Münchenstein (BL) mit neun Differenzpunkten spielen um den Titel «Jasskönigin oder Jasskönig des Jahres 2024» und um den Jahres-Jackpot von 12'000 Franken. Natürlich darf in einer königlichen Sendung auch die passende Musik nicht fehlen: Die Zuger «Örbn-Ländlr»-Formation Stubete Gäng präsentiert ein Hitmedley mit Petra Sturzenegger, Göschene Airolo, Dunne mit de Gäng und der aktuellen Hitsingle Willisau. Silvester kann kommen.

Fredrik talks to Pedro Abreu about the magical world of type theory. What is it, and why is it useful to know about and be inspired by? Pedro gives us some background on type theory, and then we talk about how type theory can provide new ways of reasoning about programs, and tools beyond tests to verify program correctness. This doesn't mean that all languages should strive for the nirvana of dependent types, but knowing the tools are out there can come in handy even if the code you write is loosely typed. We wrap up with some further podcast tips, of course including Pedro's own podcast Type theory forall. Thank you Cloudnet for sponsoring our VPS! Comments, questions or tips? We a re @kodsnack, @tobiashieta, @oferlundand @bjoreman on Twitter, have a page on Facebook and can be emailed at info@kodsnack.se if you want to write longer. We read everything we receive. If you enjoy Kodsnack we would love a review in iTunes! You can also support the podcast by buying us a coffee (or two!) through Ko-fi. Links Pedro Type theory Type theory forall - Pedro's podcast Chalmers The meetup group through which Pedro and Fredrik met Purdue university Bertrand Russell The problem of self reference Types Set theory Kurt Gödel Halting problem Alan Turing Turing machine Alonzo Church Lambda calculus Rust Dependent types Formal methods Liquid types - Haskell extension SAT solver Property-based testing Quickcheck Curry-Howard isomorphism Support Kodsnack on Ko-fi! Functional programming Imperative programming Object-oriented programming Monads Monad transformers Lenses Interactive theorem provers Isabelle HOL Dafny Saul Crucible Symbolic execution CVC3, CVC5 solvers Pure functions C# Algebraic data types Pattern matching Scala Recursion Type theory forall episode 17: the first fantastic one with Conal Elliot. The discussion continues in episode 21 Denotational types Coq IRC Software foundations - about Coq and a lot more The church of logic podcast The Iowa type theory commute podcast Titles Type theory podcasts Very odd for some people Brazilian weather Relearning to appreciate The dawn of computer science Layers of sets Where types first come in Bundle values together The research about programming languages If you squint your eyes enough Nirvana of type systems Proofs all the way down Extra guarantees If your domain is infinite Formal guarantees The properties of my system What is the meaning of my program? Building better systems

Fredrik talks to Pedro Abreu about the magical world of type theory. What is it, and why is it useful to know about and be inspired by? Pedro gives us some background on type theory, and then we talk about how type theory can provide new ways of reasoning about programs, and tools beyond tests to verify program correctness. This doesn’t mean that all languages should strive for the nirvana of dependent types, but knowing the tools are out there can come in handy even if the code you write is loosely typed. We wrap up with some further podcast tips, of course including Pedro’s own podcast Type theory forall. Thank you Cloudnet for sponsoring our VPS! Comments, questions or tips? We a re @kodsnack, @tobiashieta, @oferlund and @bjoreman on Twitter, have a page on Facebook and can be emailed at info@kodsnack.se if you want to write longer. We read everything we receive. If you enjoy Kodsnack we would love a review in iTunes! You can also support the podcast by buying us a coffee (or two!) through Ko-fi. Links Pedro Type theory Type theory forall - Pedro’s podcast Chalmers The meetup group through which Pedro and Fredrik met Purdue university Bertrand Russell The problem of self reference Types Set theory Kurt Gödel Halting problem Alan Turing Turing machine Alonzo Church Lambda calculus Rust Dependent types Formal methods Liquid types - Haskell extension SAT solver Property-based testing Quickcheck Curry-Howard isomorphism Support Kodsnack on Ko-fi! Functional programming Imperative programming Object-oriented programming Monads Monad transformers Lenses Interactive theorem provers Isabelle HOL Dafny Saul Crucible Symbolic execution CVC3, CVC5 solvers Pure functions C# Algebraic data types Pattern matching Scala Recursion Type theory forall episode 17: the first fantastic one with Conal Elliot. The discussion continues in episode 21 Denotational types Coq IRC Software foundations - about Coq and a lot more The church of logic podcast The Iowa type theory commute podcast Titles Type theory podcasts Very odd for some people Brazilian weather Relearning to appreciate The dawn of computer science Layers of sets Where types first come in Bundle values together The research about programming languages If you squint your eyes enough Nirvana of type systems Proofs all the way down Extra guarantees If your domain is infinite Formal guarantees The properties of my system What is the meaning of my program? Building better systems

Kurt Gödel gilt als größter Logiker seit Aristoteles, er beweist die Unvollständigkeit der Mathematik. Doch das weltliche Chaos macht ihn krank. Er sehnt sich nach einem Leben, das ebenso perfekt geordnet ist, wie die Welt der Mathematik. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-kurt-goedel

Kurt Gödel gilt als größter Logiker seit Aristoteles, er beweist die Unvollständigkeit der Mathematik. Doch das weltliche Chaos macht ihn krank. Er sehnt sich nach einem Leben, das ebenso perfekt geordnet ist, wie die Welt der Mathematik. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-kurt-goedel

Kurt Gödel gilt als größter Logiker seit Aristoteles, er beweist die Unvollständigkeit der Mathematik. Doch das weltliche Chaos macht ihn krank. Er sehnt sich nach einem Leben, das ebenso perfekt geordnet ist, wie die Welt der Mathematik. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-kurt-goedel

Kurt Gödel gilt als der bedeutendste Logiker des 20. Jahrhunderts. Er bewies logisch, dass man mit Logik nicht alles beweisen kann, und zeigte damit: Unsere Erkenntnis, unser Verstand hat Grenzen. Auch als Person war Gödel extrem. Von Aeneas Rooch (BR 2018)

This week we speak to multidisciplinary independent researcher William Sarill, whose life has traced a high-dimensional curve through biochemistry, art restoration, physics, and esotericism (and I'm stopping the list here but it goes on). Bill is one of the only people I know who has the scientific chops to understand and explain how to possibly unify thermodynamics with general relativity AND has gone swimming into the deep end of The Weird for long enough to develop an appreciation for its paradoxical profundities. He can also boast personal friendships with two of the greatest (and somewhat diametrically opposed) science fiction authors ever: Phil Dick and Isaac Asimov. In this conversation we start by exploring some of his discoveries and insights as an intuition-guided laboratory biomedical researcher and follow the river upstream into his synthesis of emerging theoretical frameworks that might make sense of PKD's legendary VALIS experiences — the encounter with high strangeness that drove him to write The Exegesis, over a million words of effort to explain the deep structure of time and reality. It's time for new ways to think about time! Enjoy…✨ Support This Work• Buy my brain for hourly consulting or advisory work on retainer• Become a patron on Substack or Patreon• Help me find backing for my next big project Humans On The Loop• Buy the books we discuss from my Bookshop.org reading list• Buy original paintings and prints or commission new work• Join the conversation on Discord in the Holistic Technology & Wise Innovation and Future Fossils servers• Make one-off donations at @futurefossils on Venmo, $manfredmacx on CashApp, or @michaelgarfield on PayPal• Buy the show's music on Bandcamp — intro “Olympus Mons” from the Martian Arts EP & outro “Sonnet A” from the Double-Edged Sword EP✨ Go DeeperBill's Academia.edu pageBill's talk at the PKD Film FestivalBill's profile for the Palo Alto Longevity PrizeBill's story on Facebook about his biochemistry researchBill in the FF Facebook group re: Simulation Theory, re: The Zero-Point Field, re: everything he's done that no one else has, re: how PKD predicted ChatGPT"If you find this world bad, you should see some of the others" by PKDThe Wyrd of the Early Earth: Cellular Pre-sense in the Primordial Soup by Eric WargoMy first and second interviews with William Irwin ThompsonMy lecture on biology, time, and myth from Oregon Eclipse Gathering 2017"I understand Philip K. Dick" by Terence McKennaWeird Studies on PKD and "The Trash Stratum" Part 1 & Part 2Weird Studies with Joshua Ramey on divination in scienceSparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World's Most Creative People by Robert & Michele Root-BernsteinDiscovering by Robert Root-Bernstein✨ MentionsPhilip K. Dick, Bruce Damer, Iain McGilchrist, Eric Wargo, Stu Kauffman, Michael Persinger, Alfred North Whitehead, Terence McKenna, Karl Friedrich, Mike Parker, Chris Jeynes, David Wolpert, Ivo Dinov, Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel, Erwin Schroedinger, Kaluza & Klein, Richard Feynman, Euclid, Hermann Minkowski, James Clerk Maxwell, The I Ching, St. Augustine, Stephen Hawking, Jim Hartle, Alexander Vilenkin, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Timothy Morton, Futurama, The Wachowski Siblings, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Leonard Euler, Paramahansa Yogananda, Alfred Korbzybski, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, Claude Shannon, Ludwig Boltzmann, Carl Jung, Danny Jones, Mark Newman, Michael Lachmann, Cristopher Moore, Jessica Flack, Robert Root Bernstein, Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Ruth Bernstein, Andres Gomez Emilsson, Diane Musho Hamilton This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelgarfield.substack.com/subscribe

Deborah Gambetta"Incompletezza"Una storia di Kurt GödelPonte alle Graziewww.ponteallegrazie.itLa storia di un grande genio. La storia di una rinascita.Come distaccarsi da un amore malato, afflitto da litigi perpetui, manipolazioni, fughe e ritorni? Trovando un'altra ossessione, come se ci si innalzasse su un ramo più alto dello stesso albero: questo racconta Deborah Gambetta nello stupefacente romanzo, min cui l'incontro con la vita e il pensiero di Kurt Gödel – uno dei maggiori matematici della Storia, autore di teoremi fondamentali per l'intero edificio della scienza e della tecnica – rappresenta l'innesco di una vita nuova, l'iniziazione a un universo misterioso e fantastico. Con la dedizione assoluta di chi deve salvarsi la vita, l'autrice/narratrice si rifugia nella matematica e al contempo nella conoscenza personale, quasi viva, dell'uomo Gödel: solo così troverà la chiave per fare i conti con l'assenza di senso, l'incaponirsi del destino, la casualità delle vicende umane.Incompletezza è un romanzo unico nella sua riuscita fusione di due grandi temi apparentemente opposti: da un lato la ricerca di una passione materiale definitiva, che ci spossessi per sempre di noi, dall'altro l'ambizione a una conoscenza pura e astratta, che contempli soltanto sé stessa. Il genio sovrannaturale e umanissimo di Kurt Gödel può trasformarsi allora, per chi narra e per chi legge, in un nuovo Virgilio, in una guida verso un senso possibile, verso un ordine fragile ma autentico della vita e del mondo.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarewww.ilpostodelleparole.itDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.

Ganze Opern wurden auf Texte von Kafka komponiert, Lieder wie auch Instrumentalmusik. Von den diversen Kafka-Vertonungen ist dies wohl die bekannteste. Zum 100. Todestag des meistgelesenen Autors deutscher Sprache am 3. Juni besprechen wir vier Einspielungen. 40 Fragmente aus Briefen und Tagebüchern von Franz Kafka hat der ungarische Komponist György Kurtág Mitte der 1980er-Jahre vertont. Seine verdichtete Tonsprache passt ausgezeichnet zu den kafkaesken Kürzest-Szenen, «ihre Welt aus knappen Sprachformeln, erfüllt von Trauer, Verzweiflung und Humor, Hintersinn und so vielem zugleich, liess mich nicht mehr los», sagte er einmal. Und in einigen findet er sich sogar autobiografisch wieder: Die zwei Schlangen etwa, welche im Schlussstück durch den Staub kriechen, das sind für den Komponisten er selbst und seine Frau Márta. Die Stücke bilden einen Mikrokosmos von Kurtágs Kunst, die meisten sind von aphoristischer Kürze, einzlne breiten sich aber auch rhapsodisch bis zu mehreren Minuten Spieldauer aus. Gäste von Moritz Weber sind die Mezzosopranistin Leila Pfister und die Komponistin und Geigerin Helena Winkelman.

When one path is blocked, a new one must be paved. How Einstein, Heisenberg and Gödel used constraints to make life-changing discoveries: Astrophysicist Janna Levin discusses three examples of constraints in science, and how they ultimately led to massive breakthroughs in physics and mathematics. Abiding by the speed of light caused Albert Einstein to begin his pursuit into the theory of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle planted the seed for quantum mechanics, and Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem led directly to the invention of computers and artificial intelligence. We often think of constraints as impenetrable barriers that cannot be broken. However, these very constraints have the potential to inspire new ways of thinking and revolutionize the world as we know it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ❍ About The Well ❍ Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life's biggest questions, and that's why they're the questions occupying the world's brightest minds. So what do they think? How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions? Let's dive into The Well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Rebecca Goldstein and J.J. communicate the story of Spinoza's herem and outline the radicalism of his Ethics. Our first mini-series!! Welcome to the first episode of our three-parter covering friend of the pod, Benedict "Barukh" Spinoza.Please send any complaints or compliments to podcasts@torahinmotion.orgFor more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsRebecca Newberger Goldstein graduated summa cum laude from Barnard College and immediately went on to graduate work at Princeton University, receiving her Ph.D. in philosophy. She then returned to her alma mater as an Assistant Professor of Philosophy, where she taught the philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of mathematics. She has also been a Professor or Fellow at Rutgers, Columbia, Trinity College, Yale, NYU, Dartmouth, the Radcliffe Institute, the Santa Fe Institute, and the New College of the Humanities in London.Goldstein is the author of six works of fiction, the latest of which was Thirty-Six Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, as well as three books of non-fiction: Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel; Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity; and Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away.In 1996 Goldstein became a MacArthur Fellow, receiving the prize which is popularly known as the “Genius Award.” In 2005 she was elected to The American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  In 2006 she received a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Radcliffe Fellowship. In 2008, she was designated a Humanist Laureate by the International Academy of Humanism. Goldstein has been designated Humanist of the Year 2011 by the American Humanist Association, and Freethought Heroine 2011 by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. In that year she also delivered the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Yale University, entitled "The Ancient Quarrel: Philosophy and Literature," which was published by University of Utah Press.In September, 2015, Goldstein was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Obama in a ceremony at the White House. The citation reads: "For bringing philosophy into conversation with culture. In scholarship, Dr. Goldstein has elucidated the ideas of Spinoza and Gödel, while in fiction, she deploys wit and drama to help us understand the great human conflict between thought and feeling.”

Legyen szó kortárs zenéről vagy dzsesszről, a világ legjelentősebb hangversenytermeiben koncertezik. Mesterkurzusokon mutatja meg a hangszerében rejlő lehetőségeket, hallgatói pedig rácsodálkoznak, milyen modern hangszer a cimbalom. Interjú Lukács Miklós Liszt Ferenc-díjas cimbalomművésszel.

Infinity is a puzzling idea. Even young children are fascinated by its various manifestations: What is the biggest number? Does the universe have an edge? Does time have a beginning? Philosophers have tried to answer these questions since time immemorial. More recently, they have been joined by scientists and mathematicians. Indeed, a whole branch of mathematics has become dedicated to the study of infinity.  So what have we learned? Can we finally understand infinity? And what has this quest taught us about ourselves?  To explore this topic, I am joined by philosopher Adrian W. Moore.  Professor Moore is a special guest for two reasons. First, he is a world expert on infinity, known for an excellent BBC series, "History of the Infinite". More personally, he is the head tutor of Philosophy at St Hugh's College, Oxford, where I studied my BA in Philosophy and Psychology. It has now been ten years since Prof Moore interviewed me and, for whatever reason, accepted me as a student. I feel honoured to mark the occasion with this episode. In this episode, we discuss: (02:35) Why infinity fascinates (12:20) Greeks on infinity (20:05) A finite cosmos?  (25:00) Zeno's paradoxes (32:35) Answering Zeno (42:35) Measuring infinities? Georg Cantor (54:05) Infinity vs human understanding (66:20) Mystics on infinity As always, we finish with Prof Moore's reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠ MENTIONS Names: Aristotle; Zeno; Archytus; Ludwig Wittgenstein; Kurt Gödel; Alan Turing; Georg Cantor; William Blake; Immanuel Kant  Terms: Pythagoreans; Zeno's paradoxes; calculus; transfinite arithmetic; counting numbers, i.e. positive integers; absolute infinities, or inconsistent totalities Books: The Infinite (Moore) Other scholarship: For games on infinite boards, see e.g. the work of Davide Leonessi: https://leonessi.org/

"All the facts of science aren't enough to understand the world's meaning. For this, you must step outside the world." Welcome back to another episode of Made You Think! In this episode, we're adventuring into the world of Logicomix, a graphic novel that takes us on a journey through the intricate life of mathematician Bertrand Russell. From the quest for precision that borders on madness to the historical events Russell was embroiled in, we'll explore the complexities of logic, philosophy, and mathematics. We cover a wide range of topics including: Why seeking precision in understanding the world can drive one mad Bertrand Russell's historical involvements and achievements The rapid progress of aviation and technology How mathematics, logic, and philosophy remain connected Discovering the lives and contributions of various mathematicians And much more. Please enjoy, and make sure to follow Nat, Neil, and Adil on Twitter and share your thoughts on the episode. Links from the Episode: Mentioned in the Show: Prolific (1:06) Agrippan Trilemma (12:33) Münchhausen Trilemma (13:04) Kate Middleton photo (30:48) House of Lords (32:06) The Flaw in Gödel's proof (57:59) Arnold (1:03:50) Political ETFs (1:13:49) Books Mentioned: Logicomix East of Eden (0:03) (Nat's Book Notes) Of Mice and Men (0:21) The Grapes of Wrath (0:22) Watchmen (6:10) V for Vendetta (6:11) In Praise of Idleness (7:12) (Book Episode) (Nat's Book Notes) Gödel, Escher, Bach (12:01) (Book Episode) (Nat's Book Notes) The First World War (36:16) The Second World War (36:16) Banana King (1:00:45) Chip War (1:01:01) The Prize (1:01:23) Bad Therapy (1:02:46) Kon-Tiki (1:08:17) Endurance (1:09:40) People Mentioned: Apostolos Doxiadis Christos Papadimitriou John Steinbeck (0:01) Bertrand Russell (6:51) Kurt Gödel (14:46) Ludwig Wittgenstein (20:49) Jordan Peterson (53:03) Show Topics: (0:00) We kick off the episode by sharing John Steinbeck's journal writing process for East of Eden, his collaborative relationship with his publisher, and how he landed on the title.  (5:25) Though we are not talking about East of Eden today (but...stay tuned for that episode up next!), we're covering Logicomix, a graphic novel by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou. (8:16) We give an overview of the book and how it shares different intricacies and stories from Bertrand Russell's life. From his parents being in a throuple to schizophrenia running in his family, we try to decipher which parts were real vs. fabricated. (10:36) Why you shouldn't necessarily look for precision and formal rules about how the world works. We tie this idea into Taoism which we've seen commonly in a few of our other recent reads. In short, no system can fully explain itself. You need to step outside of it. (13:42) Is it possible to build a perfect map of everything that mathematics entails? We talk about the connection between logic, philosophy, and mathematics.  (20:25) There were several mathematicians in the book. How many of them are you familiar with? (23:36) Russell's involvement in a variety of historical events from the Cuban Missile Crisis to JFK's assassination, as he was not convinced that Oswald was guilty of the crime.  (28:34) If you've been up-to-date with the news lately, you may be just as interested in the Kate Middleton conspiracies as we are. Tangent time! (31:38) Russell was sat in the House of Lords, a chamber of UK Parliament which is generally not up for election. Plus, we brainstorm some ideas of who would be considered Bertrand Russell's equivalent in the US. (36:48) We dive in to some different historical events and wars. The Ottoman Empire, World War 1 and 2, the Persian Gulf War, and how warfare and aircraft carriers changed during these ages.  (41:26) Aviation and its rapid improvements in technology in such a short span of time. (45:07) "Shouldn't we get back to the book?" Nat, Neil, and Adil discuss some of the main concepts from the book, including the pursuit of truth in the world of mathematics. You're never going to fully understand reality, but for some, that's a hard truth that they don't want to accept. (49:44) What does it mean to know, and how can you be justified in knowing something? Remember, a belief can be true while at the same time not satisfying the conditions of logic.  (56:05) Unlike the other mathematicians discussed in the book, Gödel constructed a proof to his theorem that hasn't yet been disproven. Regardless of whether their desires for absolute truth was achieved or not, a lot of the findings are fundamentally useful in many other ways. (1:00:34) We talk about some of the books that we have coming up on the podcast, and throw around some ideas. Which book would you like to see us do an episode on? Let us know here! (1:05:04) Is it true that the more you think about how you're feeling, the worse you feel?  (1:10:07) Nat, Neil, and Adil share some more of their upcoming reads they're excited about, and different war books, including Martin Gilbert's books on WW1 and WW2. (1:13:24) Political ETFs that you can buy into. $NANC and $KRUZ, anyone? (1:17:22) That concludes this episode! Next up on Made You Think, we have the long awaited episode covering East of Eden by John Steinbeck. Make sure to grab a copy of the book and read along with us before the next episode. Check out our new website to stay updated on what's to come. If you enjoyed this episode, let us know by leaving a review on iTunes and tell a friend. As always, let us know if you have any book recommendations! You can say hi to us on Twitter @TheRealNeilS, @adilmajid, @nateliason and share your thoughts on this episode. You can now support Made You Think using the Value-for-Value feature of Podcasting 2.0. This means you can directly tip the co-hosts in BTC with minimal transaction fees. To get started, simply download a podcast app (like Fountain or Breez) that supports Value-for-Value and send some BTC to your in-app wallet. You can then use that to support shows who have opted-in, including Made You Think! We'll be going with this direct support model moving forward, rather than ads. Thanks for listening. See you next time!

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1099, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Waits And Measures 1: This name for a type of ounce used to measure gold comes from a city in medieval France, not ancient Turkey. the troy ounce. 2: One U.S. beer barrel contains 31 of these units; that's nearly 4,000 delicious ounces. gallons. 3: Glidden says it takes about an hour for latex this to dry; wanna watch?. paint. 4: A 2019 study found that Newark Airport had the longest average wait time, 23 minutes, in this 3-letter agency's lines. the TSA. 5: In 2019 more than 130,000 fans had their names on the Green Bay Packers' waiting list for these. season tickets. Round 2. Category: Czechs 1: In the 1890s he moved briefly from Prague to New York City, inspiring his best-known symphony. Dvořák. 2: Czech-born director Forman and Czech prime minister Zeman share this first name. Milos. 3: After 74 years together, it was splitsville for the Czech Republic and this nation on January 1, 1993. Slovakia. 4: This international alliance welcomed the Czech Republic as a member in March 1999. NATO. 5: The Bohemian Czech king Charles IV held this "Holy" title from 1355 to 1378. Holy Roman Emperor. Round 3. Category: Who Wants Dessert? 1: No dillydallying after taking this eggy dessert out of the oven; it will only stay fully risen for a minute or 2. souffle. 2: Colorful sprinkles baked in the batter turn ordinary birthday cake into this festive type, but don't toss it in celebration. Funfetti (Confetti). 3: This tangy dessert is an official state food of Florida. key lime pie. 4: At Christmas time we want traditional English this, slices of cake soaked in sherry and layered with fruit, custard and whipped cream. trifle. 5: Made with purple yams, ube hopia is a specialty of this country. the Philippines. Round 4. Category: Proofreading 1: Using 3 right triangles, president and former math teacher James Garfield gave an original proof of this. the Pythagorean Theorem. 2: A proof that shows a statement to be true by building an example is called this, like helpful criticism. constructive. 3: There's no "di" in this term for a short theorem used to prove a larger one--but watch out for the horns anyway. lemma. 4: In 1637 he wrote, "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it". Pierre de Fermat. 5: Mathematicians were shocked to read his 1931 proof of the incompleteness of any given formal system. Kurt Gödel. Round 5. Category: I Got A Strait 1: Bearing the name of an 8th century Berber conqueror, this strait separates 2 continents. the Strait of Gibraltar. 2: Some ancestors of Native Americans are believed to have crossed from Asia over what's now this about 13,000 years ago. the Bering Strait. 3: The Channel Tunnel travels under this strait for more than 20 miles. Strait of Dover. 4: The 1905 Battle of Tsushima Strait near Korea was a decisive victory for Japan over this nation. Russia. 5: The Sunda Strait connects the Indian Ocean with this sea that shares its name with an island. the Java Sea. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

The nature of proof and mathematics as a creative enterprise. Not all that is true can be proved as such, the high hopes of David Hilbert for placing the entirety of mathematics on a "firm foundation", the mathematical world-shattering results of Kurt Gödel which frustrated that project, a history of proof and finally Roger Penrose and whether human brains are computers in the Turing sense. And some very long remarks by me, especially in the introduction. Become a subscriber at https://patreon.com/tokcast?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink

Join us for a conversation with Edward Frenkel, mathematician, Berkeley professor and author of the international bestseller Love and Math, as we explore the nature of reality and the fallacy of the naive ideas of determinism and computationalism. Drawing on the landmark achievements of modern mathematics and quantum physics, Frenkel makes the case that consciousness is not computational, that intuition and imagination cannot be captured by algorithms. A regular presenter at the SAND conferences, Frenkel has long argued that the debate about the capabilities and dangers of artificial intelligence can be traced to the question “Who am I?” Hence it creates an opportunity for us to go deeper on the path of self-inquiry. To facilitate this process, it is essential to let go of the misconceptions of the science of the 19th century and to update our worldview with the paradigms of the science of the 21st century. A mind-expanding dialogue about the Infinite nature of consciousness, limits of knowledge, and the alchemy of transformation. Edward Frenkel is a professor of mathematics at University of California, Berkeley, member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and winner of the Weyl Prize in Mathematical Physics. He is the author of the international bestseller Love and Math which has been published in 19 languages. Links Website YouTube Edward's SAND 2014 Talk Edward's SAND 2015 talk Brian Grene's interview quoted in this conversation Robert Sapolsky's interview Jerome Feldman's article about the incompleteness of current theories of neural computation Edward's article “AI Safety: A First-Person Perspective“ Topics: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:04:36 – Journey to Mathematics 00:11:06 – Pythagoras 00:17:15 – Going Against Dogma 00:19:15 – First-Person Perspective 00:22:12 – Dogmas in Modern Science 00:36:47 – Kurt Gödel 00:40:58 – Agency and Free Will 00:58:20 – On AI 01:07:44 – Brain and Consciousness (with Peter Russell)

Science comes in three forms: objective observation, and the same applied to either reductionist views or those of the whole. The former means reducing everything to the importance of individual parts, while the latter is the acknowledgment of the whole. As with astronomy and astrology, science and theology were also once intertwined, asking questions like: What is the meaning of existence and what are nature's secrets?Kurt Gödel, an Austrian mathematician, demonstrated in 1931 the futility of using only reductionist thought in order to model a complex system. Although complex, such systems - i.e., all of nature - are comprised of their individual parts which themselves are whole systems. The seemingly logical nature of A relates to B and thus must cause C is an oversimplified way of looking at the world and works great if you desire to build a machine, bomb, or narrative around disease. It's easy to create associations using fallacies: one could easily say that since all humans have skin and die, that these two things are the leading causes of death! In reality things are far more complicated and with this understanding it becomes clear how many things are made worse by solving problem A with solution B, since the result is usually the creation of problem X. This type of science is based on established opinion, not fact, but in fact dogma. Science has thus become a theological narrative itself, ironically mirroring the opposition it once had in the dogma of the Church, which still rejects certain scientific findings. But findings are not facts and proofs are only such of one reductionist part, not the whole.

Kate Molleson travels to Budapest to meet Hungary's greatest living composer, György Kurtág, now 97 years old. Kurtag talks to Kate about the musical homages that he has made to friends, his early focus on the clarity of single notes at the time he wrote his Op.1 String Quartet, the influence of languages on his compositional style, and his new opera, a work based on the life of the German mathematician, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. Above all, he talks about his Marta, his wife of over 70 years, with whom he performed piano duets, and he reveals to Kate why he stayed in Hungary in 1956.Kurtag once said that his mother tongue is Bartok, and Kate visits the Bela Bartok Memorial House where she talks to the curator, Zoltán Farkas, about the composer's relationship with Hungary and the folk traditions that he collected both at home and in neighbouring countries. During a break in a busy rehearsal schedule, the conductor Ivan Fischer also shares his views on Bartok and the distinctive sound of the Budapest Festival Orchestra.Kate joins the director of the Hungarian Radio Choir, Zoltán Pad, and the composer Daniel Dinyes, to learn how the Hungarian language is expressed in music, and hear more about the unique sound of the choir. Kate also meets Hungary's queen of song, Márta Sebestyén, who is at the very heart of Hungary's folk music. Márta Sebestyén talks with pride about her mother, a celebrated student of Zoltan Kodaly, about her own travels in search of pure folk music. She treats Kate, too, to a traditional Christmas carol.

fWotD Episode 2390: Quine–Putnam indispensability argument.Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Monday, 20 November 2023 is Quine–Putnam indispensability argument.The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument is an argument in the philosophy of mathematics for the existence of abstract mathematical objects such as numbers and sets, a position known as mathematical platonism. It was named after the philosophers Willard Quine and Hilary Putnam, and is one of the most important arguments in the philosophy of mathematics.Although elements of the indispensability argument may have originated with thinkers such as Gottlob Frege and Kurt Gödel, Quine's development of the argument was unique for introducing to it a number of his philosophical positions such as naturalism, confirmational holism, and the criterion of ontological commitment. Putnam gave Quine's argument its first detailed formulation in his 1971 book Philosophy of Logic. He later came to disagree with various aspects of Quine's thinking, however, and formulated his own indispensability argument based on the no miracles argument in the philosophy of science. A standard form of the argument in contemporary philosophy is credited to Mark Colyvan; whilst being influenced by both Quine and Putnam, it differs in important ways from their formulations. It is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities. Nominalists, philosophers who reject the existence of abstract objects, have argued against both premises of this argument. An influential argument by Hartry Field claims that mathematical entities are dispensable to science. This argument has been supported by attempts to demonstrate that scientific and mathematical theories can be reformulated to remove all references to mathematical entities. Other philosophers, including Penelope Maddy, Elliott Sober, and Joseph Melia, have argued that we do not need to believe in all of the entities that are indispensable to science. The arguments of these writers inspired a new explanatory version of the argument, which Alan Baker and Mark Colyvan support, that argues mathematics is indispensable to specific scientific explanations as well as whole theories.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:43 UTC on Monday, 20 November 2023.For the full current version of the article, see Quine–Putnam indispensability argument on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Kendra Neural.

YouTube link https://youtu.be/zMPnrNL3zsE Gregory Chaitin discusses algorithmic information theory, its relationship with Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the properties of Omega number.  Topics of discussion include algorithmic information theory, Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the Omega number. Listen now early and ad-free on Patreon https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal. Sponsors:  - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch LINKS MENTIONED: - Meta Math and the Quest for Omega (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3stCFxH - Visual math episode on Chaitin's constant: https://youtu.be/WLASHxChXKM - Podcast w/ David Wolpert on TOE: https://youtu.be/qj_YUxg-qtY - A Mathematician's Apology (G. H. Hardy): https://amzn.to/3qOEbtL - The Physicalization of Metamathematics (Stephen Wolfram): https://amzn.to/3YUcGLL - Podcast w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson on TOE: https://youtu.be/HhWWlJFwTqs - Proving Darwin (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3L0hSbs - What is Life? (Erwin Schrödinger): https://amzn.to/3YVk8Xm - "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (Alan Turing): https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/T... - "The Major Transitions in Evolution" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PdzYci - "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PeKFeM - Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://youtu.be/1sXrRc3Bhrs - Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel (Rebecca Goldstein): https://amzn.to/3Pf8Yt4 - Rebecca Goldstein on TOE on Godel's Incompleteness: https://youtu.be/VkL3BcKEB6Y - Gödel's Proof (Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman): https://amzn.to/3QX89q1 - Giant Brains, or Machines That Think (Edmund Callis Berkeley): https://amzn.to/3QXniYj - An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (William Feller): https://amzn.to/44tWjXI TIMESTAMPS: - 00:00:00 Introduction - 00:02:27 Chaitin's Unconventional Self-Taught Journey - 00:06:56 Chaitin's Incompleteness Theorem and Algorithmic Randomness - 00:12:00 The Infinite Calculation Paradox and Omega Number's Complexity (Halting Probability) - 00:27:38 God is a Mathematician: An Ontological Basis - 00:37:06 Emergence of Information as a Fundamental Substance - 00:53:10 Evolution and the Modern Synthesis (Physics-Based vs. Computational-Based Life) - 01:08:43 Turing's Less Known Masterpiece - 01:16:58 Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and Epigenetics - 01:21:20 Renormalization and Tractability - 01:28:15 The Infinite Fitness Function - 01:42:03 Progress in Mathematics despite Incompleteness - 01:48:38 Unconventional Academic Approach - 01:50:35 Godel's Incompleteness, Mathematical Intuition, and the Platonic World - 02:06:01 The Enigma of Creativity in Mathematics - 02:15:37 Dark Matter: A More Stable Form of Hydrogen? (Hydrinos) - 02:23:33 Stigma and the "Reputation Trap" in Science - 02:28:43 Cold Fusion - 02:29:28 The Stagnation of Physics - 02:41:33 Defining Randomness: The Chaos of 0s and 1s - 02:52:01 The Struggles For Young Mathematicians and Physicists (Advice) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the Business Broken to Smokin' Podcast: Mark and Shane talk about a new tool Mark developed called “Pump the Brakes” - a hack to balance out making decisions with your gut and also with thinking! Download the tool here: https://lodestonetruenorth.com/podcast-episode-045-pump-the-brakes/ 0:00 Intro 4:20 A lot of visionaries are driven by ideas and they often have a sensory operating system. 5:50 How to approach this exercise Pressure test the idea Balance emotion with reality Forced objectivity Turn over big rocks and see what's underneath Help prevent ugly girlfriend syndrome Hopium antidote Take a personal retreat and journal all the answers Helps to get your thoughts in order Take a significant chunk of time to do this exercise, maybe half a day out of the office Landing spot for this work could be in your journal 12:21 Step 1 - Park a date in your calendar then go do it 12:29 Step 2 - Take a sheet of paper or your journal and  park your idea right in the center. Try to write it out in 10 words or less. 14:09 Reference to the Incompleteness Theorems by Kurt Gödel https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/   14:56 Questions to start to answer (not in any order): What are the essential operating principles?   (Rabid to written) Can you paint a picture of failure? Can you paint a picture of success? What are your guiding principles? Reference to Ray Dalio's book Principles What are you trying solve? What are some other options? What is the harm in not doing it? What is at stake? What are the essential elements? (Ref to the Far Side cartoon What the?) What are some of the missing resources? What will have to change to do this? List your trusted advisors and their opinions about this idea Legal Financial Asset management Coach Describe the pressing need to do this 36:36 Book reference - American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company by Bryce  G. Hoffman 41:19 Movie reference Tall Tale https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111359/      ** Credits** Music - What was I thinking by Dierks Bentley Website: https://www.lodestonetruenorth.comWebsite: https://www.bigeasydesk.com (The best co-working space in Northeast Ohio!)LinkedIn Book Club Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/14158790/  LinkedIn Mark: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-whitmore-lodestone/LinkedIn Lodestone: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lodestone-true-northLodestone Online Courses: https://lodestone.thinkific.com Podcast:YouTube (video)https://youtube.com/@lodestonetruenorth Spotify (video or audio)https://open.spotify.com/show/3QCsZ7fyKr4z804oTac3FUApple Podcasts (audio)https://apple.co/3O4uv4H Other Podcast Platforms https://lodestonetruenorth.com/podcast/

“An imaginative restructuring of a phantasmagoric life into an alternative phantasmagorical story. Oppenheimer fans will be intrigued.” —Martin J. Sherwin, co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the basis for Christopher Nolan's movie OppenheimerWhile J. Robert Oppenheimer and his Manhattan Project team struggle to develop the atomic bomb, Edward Teller wants something even more devastating: a weapon based on nuclear fusion — the mechanism that powers the sun. But Teller's research leads to a terrifying discovery: by the mid-21st century, the sun will eject its outermost layer, destroying the entire planet Earth.Oppenheimer combines forces with Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, Freeman Dyson, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Leo Szilard, John von Neumann, and Kurt Gödel — plus rocket scientist Wernher von Braun — in a race against time to save our planet.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/houseofmysteryradio. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/houseofmysteryradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wie bringen wir der nächsten Generation, unseren Kindern, die Welt der Informatik und Software-Entwicklung näher?Über diese Frage sprechen wir mit der Expertin Dr. Diana Knodel. studierte Informatikerin mit Schwerpunkt Psychologie, Autorin von zwei Kinderbüchern zum Thema Programmieren für Kinder sowie Gründerin von zwei Firmen, AppCamps und fobizz, im Bereich Bildung mit Schwerpunkt IT und Softwareentwicklung. Wir sprechen über aktuelle Vorbilder in der Informatik bzw. Programmierung für Kinder, ab welchem Alter Kinder mit der Programmierung starten können, welche Code-Editoren sind speziell für Kinder geeignet, wie können wir Lehrkräfte weiterbilden, damit diese das Thema in den Schulen vorantreiben, wie ChatGPT und KI im Allgemeinen die Bildung verändert wird und vieles mehr. Viel Spaß.Bonus: Warum ChatGPT der neue Taschenrechner wird.Das schnelle Feedback zur Episode:

On today's ID the Future from the vault, we're pleased to feature a cross-post from our sister podcast Mind Matters. Here, host Robert J. Marks begins a conversation with trailblazing mathematician and computer scientist Gregory Chaitin. The two discuss Chaitin's beginnings in computer science, his growing up in the 1960s a stone's throw from Central Park, his thoughts on historic scientists in his field such as Leonard Euler and Kurt Gödel, and the story of Chaitin's thwarted meeting with the famed German-Austrian logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Also touched on: Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God and how children can be said to have solved Chaitin's incompleteness problem! Source

Ioanna Georgiou, mathematics educator and author of “Mathematical Adventures!” and “Peculiar Deaths of Famous Mathematicians”, joins us to chat about Kurt Gödel! In this episode, we'll attempt to answer the following questions: What's the best way to point out typos in an important document? What if a statement cannot be proved? What do either of these have to do with math?  Connect with Ioanna at her website https://ioannageorgiou.com/ or on one of her social channels: IG: @yoayeo.maths Twitter/TikTok: @YoaYeo Let us know your thoughts.  Follow us on Facebook or email us at podcast@infinitelyirrational.com.  For math and the research behind the episode, visit our webpage at www.infinitelyirrational.com We look forward to hearing from you!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Control Problem: Unsolved or Unsolvable?, published by Remmelt on June 2, 2023 on LessWrong. td;lr No control method exists to safely contain the global feedback effects of self-sufficient learning machinery. What if this control problem turns out to be an unsolvable problem? Where are we two decades into resolving to solve a seemingly impossible problem? If something seems impossible. well, if you study it for a year or five, it may come to seem less impossible than in the moment of your snap initial judgment. Eliezer Yudkowsky, 2008 A list of lethalities.we are not on course to solve in practice in time on the first critical try; none of it is meant to make a much stronger claim about things that are impossible in principle Eliezer Yudkowsky, 2022 How do you interpret these two quotes, by a founding researcher, fourteen years apart? A. We indeed made comprehensive progress on the AGI control problem, and now at least the overall problem does not seem impossible anymore. B. The more we studied the overall problem, the more we uncovered complex sub-problems we'd need to solve as well, but so far can at best find partial solutions to. Which problems involving physical/information systems were not solved after two decades? Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists. Leonardo da Vinci, 1494 No mathematical proof or even rigorous argumentation has been published demonstrating that the A[G]I control problem may be solvable, even in principle, much less in practice. Roman Yampolskiy, 2021 We cannot rely on the notion that if we try long enough, maybe AGI safety turns out possible after all. Historically, many researchers and engineers tried to solve problems that turned out impossible: perpetual motion machines that both conserve and disperse energy. uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics into some local variable theory. singular methods for 'squaring the circle', 'doubling the cube' or 'trisecting the angle'. distributed data stores where messages of data are consistent in their content, and also continuously available in a network that is also tolerant to partitions. formal axiomatic systems that are consistent, complete and decidable. Smart creative researchers of their generation came up with idealized problems. Problems that, if solved, would transform science, if not humanity. They plowed away at the problem for decades, if not millennia. Until some bright outsider proved by contradiction of the parts that the problem is unsolvable. Our community is smart and creative – but we cannot just rely on our resolve to align AI. We should never forsake our epistemic rationality, no matter how much something seems the instrumentally rational thing to do. Nor can we take comfort in the claim by a founder of this field that they still know it to be possible to control AGI to stay safe. Thirty years into running a program to secure the foundations of mathematics, David Hilbert declared “We must know. We will know!” By then, Kurt Gödel had constructed the first incompleteness theorem. Hilbert kept his declaration for his gravestone. Short of securing the foundations of safe AGI control – that is, through empirically-sound formal reasoning – we cannot rely on any researcher's pithy claim that "alignment is possible in principle". Going by historical cases, this problem could turn out solvable. Just really, really hard to solve. The flying machine seemed an impossible feat of engineering. Next, controlling a rocket's trajectory to the moon seemed impossible. By the same reference class, ‘long-term safe AGI' could turn out unsolvable – the perpetual motion machine of our time. It takes just one researcher to define the problem to be solved, reason from empirically sound premises, and arrive ...

durée : 01:28:40 - Peter Szendy, écrivain - par : Priscille Lafitte - Ses origines hongroises portent Peter Szendy vers Béla Bartók et György Kurtág, à l'écoute des grillons et du scintillement des eaux d'un lac de Transylvanie. Ce philosophe et musicologue se passionne aussi pour la voix, la ventriloquie et le bégaiement dans son dernier livre "La voix par ailleurs". - réalisé par : Claire Lagarde

Covering Part 6 of Alain Badiou's Being and Event on “The Impasse of Ontology,” Alex and Andrew discuss Badiou's critique of the discernible and constructible as foreclosures of the event. Guest Calvin Warren thinks the catastrophe through the post-metaphysics of anti-math and the problem of the one. Warren is a professor of African American Studies at Emory University. His research interests include Continental Philosophy (particularly post-Heideggerian and nihilistic philosophy), Lacanian psychoanalysis, queer theory, Black Philosophy, Afro-pessimism, and theology. He is the author of Ontological Terror: Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation (Duke University Press).   Concepts related to The Impasse of Ontology The Cantor-Gödel-Cohen-Easton Symptom, Events as Decisions, James C Scott's Seeing Like a State, The Impasse of Ordinality/Cardinality Set/Number Situation/State and Belonging/Inclusion, Errancy and the Immeasurable, Cardinality, Diagonalization and Cantor/Continuum Hypothesis, Kurt Gödel and Paul Cohen, Jacques Lacan and the Impasse of Formalization, The Power Set and the Size of the State, The Subject and the Abyss, Critiques of Leibniz's Discernible and Constructible Worlds (and Analytic Philosophy's Symbolic Thought), Rousseau's General and Undifferentiated  Being of Truth (and Paul Cohen's Absolutization of Errancy), and all Classic Metaphysics that includes Communist Eschatology (and Large Cardinals, the Virtual Being of Theology, and Transcendence).   Interview with Calvin Warren Qui Parle on The Catastrophe, Ontological Terror, Alain Badiou and the One as Anti-Black, Denise Ferreira da Silva, Pure Form as Pure Violence, Black aesthetics, Katherine McKittrick, The Ledger as Both the Inclusion of Black Death and the Concealment of Black Life, Catastrophe, Abyss, Nihilism, Nothingness, Pessimism, Post-Metaphysics, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon and the Zone of Non-Being, Subtraction, Aesthetics, Romanticism, Afrofuturism   Links Warren profile, https://aas.emory.edu/people/bios/warren-calvin.html Warren papers, https://emory.academia.edu/calvinwarren Warren, Ontological Terror: Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation, https://www.dukeupress.edu/ontological-terror Warren, "The Catastrophe: Black Feminist Poethics, (Anti)form, and Mathematical Nihilism," https://muse.jhu.edu/article/749148/pdf

Covering Part 3 of Alain Badiou's Being and Event on “Nature & Infinity,” Alex and Andrew complete the "arithmetic, natural story" that constitutes Badiou's presentation of being within the book so far. Guest Sarah Pourciau explores the history and philosophy of set theory, while also scrutinizing the conclusions Badiou tries to draw from it. Pourciau is a professor of German Studies at Duke University. Her expertise includes 19th Century German thought, including both philosophy and mathematics (Dedekind, Cantor). She is the author of the book The Writing of Spirit: Soul, System, and the Roots of Language Science. Concepts on Nature and Infinity Political Modernism, Math as the Difference between Real and Natural Numbers, Martin Heidegger's Poetic Ontology, Jacques Lacan's Matheme, Physis, Nature, Natural Multiples, the Non-existence of Nature, Cardinality and Ordinality, Ordinal Chain, Infinity and Finitude, Arithmetic and Natural Infinity, Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind, Five Critiques of GWF Hegel's Notion of Infinity. Interview with Sarah Pourciau Digital Ocean, Richard Dedekind, Platonic Eidos, Georg Cantor and the Abyss, Gender and “The Feminine,” Kantian Intuition, Logos and the Origin of Set Theory, Politics, Naming and Numbers, Spontaneity, Différance, Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel, Computability. Links Pourciau profile, https://scholars.duke.edu/person/sarah.pourciau Pourciau, The Writing of Spirit: Soul, System, and the Roots of Language Science, https://www.fordhampress.com/9780823275632/the-writing-of-spirit/ Pourciau, "A/logos: An Anomalous Episode in the History of Number," https://muse.jhu.edu/article/728110 Pourciau, "On the Digital Ocean," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/717319

As I've mentioned before, ecumenical phenomenology has an enormous capacity to answer a wide range of difficult philosophical questions. This episode will be exploring some of those questions and the answers that ecumenical phenomenology provides. Transcript with citations available at asatanistreadsthebible.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/asatanistreadsthebible/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/asatanistreadsthebible/support

Covering Part 1 of Alain Badiou's Being and Event on the topic of “Being,” Alex and Andrew introduce some foundational concepts and address Badiou's relation to other philosophers. Guest Knox Peden outlines where Badiou fits within the intellectual history of French philosophy, Marxism, and science. Peden is author of Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze (published in 2014). Knox has also worked as an editor and translator including collaborations on Cahiers pour l'Analyse (published as Concept and Form, volumes 1 and 2) and On Logic and the Theory of Science by Jean Cavaillès. Schools of Philosophy Math and the Philosophy of Mathematics, a Mathematic Ontology based in Set Theory, Being Qua Being, Martin Heidegger and Badiou's Critique of Poetic Ontology, Post-Cartesian Theories of the Subject from Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Jacques Lacan, Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle. Key Thinkers and Concepts Jean Cavaillès, Albert Lautman, Georg Cantor, and Kurt Gödel, Axiomatic Set Theory (Axiom of Extensionality, Power Sets, Axiom of Union, Axiom of Separation, Axioms of Replacement and Substitution), The Count, The One, Void, ∅ (Mark Naught), Nature, Name, Cardinality. Interview with Knox Peden French Marxism, Marxist Science and Ideology, Rationalism, Empiricism, Phenomenology and Edmund Husserl, Gaston Bachelard and Philosophy of Science, Truth, Cahiers pour l'Analyse including Jacques-Alain Miller and Jean-Claude Milner, “Mark and Lack,” the Subject, Suture. Links Knox Peden profile, https://hass.uq.edu.au/profile/7697/knox-peden Peden, Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze, https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22793 Hallward and Peden, Concept and Form, two volumes dedicated to Cahiers pour l'Analyse, https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/35-concept-and-form Cahiers pour l'Analyse(electronic edition) http://cahiers.kingston.ac.uk/ Cavaillès, On Logic and the Theory of Science, translated by Peden and Mackay, https://www.urbanomic.com/book/logic-theory-science/

In this episode of the Business Broken to Smokin' Podcast, Lodestone True North's Head Coach Mark Whitmore and our guest Tim Campbell, CVO of Dearman Moving & Storage ( https://dearmanmoving.com/ ) discuss family business transitions, the importance of a great set of core values and more! 0:00 Intro 2:18 History of Dearman 7:47 A caution for every business owner 11:56 The default business model… 13:06 Tim's story 22:20 Needing a coach on your side… 22:30 Self learning, and unlearning bad habits 25:15 Need to get beyond fixing symptoms 25:48 Book references: Pinnacle by Steve Preda & Greg Cleary Rockefeller Habits by Verne Harnish The Advantage by Pat Lencioni Get a Grip by Mike Paton & Gino Wickman 27:41 What's different with the Dearman business now… 29:17 The importance of having a great set of core values… 32:24 There's a bit of disruption… Working on the business is like working on a moving vehicle 37:24 Another big hurdle beginning with a new business operating system 41:05 Dearman's Core Values 46:41 First big challenge/mistake about core values - you don't have any… 48:00 Second big mistake about core values - they are vague. They need to be clearly differentiated. 48:43 Jim Collins - the definition of the right person on the bus 54:14 Using core values in the interview process 50:55 Book reference - Grit by Angela Duckworth - chapter 12 is about culture https://angeladuckworth.com/ 58:44 Business expanding during an economy in contraction 1:00:29 What coaching does for the business… 1:01:11 The space here at Lodestone (the Coral Reef) 1:02:07 Reference to Kurt Gödel 1:05:51 Some advice to a business that could use an advisor or coach 1:07:01 “A business without a business coach is like a car without engine oil” 1:09:23 the BSAF analogy 1:12:33 (Good quote here from Tim - Shoutout to Mark) 1:18:15 All about epiphanies 1:20:21 Attention business owners… 1:23:07 Family businesses are messy… 1:24:56 A good indicator for Mark working with a future client… 1:26:35 Money is a terrible “why” 1:30:52 It doesn't have to be lonely and miserable at the top 1:37:50 What's your favorite Lodestone tool… 1:49:28 Book reference - Necessary Endings by Dr. Henry Cloud 1:56:08 Two things needed to make the tough decisions: A clear vision: 1 - Where are we heading 2 - Why is it important 3 - Who are we (culture) 1:56:23 A clear set of seats (organizationally) 1:57:03 The seven solutions to people issues… 1 - Do Nothing 2 - Observe 3 - Training/coaching 4 - Put in a different seat 5 - Put on some sort of notice 6 - Delayed termination 7 - Fire now 2:02:33 The Clarity Maze Tool 2:15:24 What would you tell a 30 something business person… 2:21:48 Don't let the business own you Website: www.lodestonetruenorth.com Website www.bigeasydesk.com LinkedIn Mark: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-whitmore-lodestone/ LinkedIn Lodestone: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lodestone-true-north Lodestone Online Courses: lodestone.thinkific.com Music - Truckin' by The Grateful Dead

Mickey implores Bob: “Leave Biden alone!” Bob proves incapable. ... Democrats' surprisingly good Senate race poll numbers ... Mickey: Immigration numbers are climbing, but the media isn't covering it ... The downsides of framing US foreign policy as a “struggle against autocracy” ... How courageous was Pence on January 6? ... Did Trump both plan and fan the violence on January 6? ... Mickey: Trump and DeSantis are neck and neck as 2024 prospects ... Will Biden lift Trump-era tariffs on China? ... Bob: Ukraine may soon run out of ammo for its Soviet-era artillery ... Parrot Room preview: Exciting child tax credit news, Jeffrey Epstein news, a new angle on the Dave Weigel affair, Stanford eliminates fun, a deep dive into Bob's views on consciousness, the dating habits of Richard Spencer, the US Open, Bob pummels an NYT headline, the Proud Boys, and Kurt Gödel ...

Mickey implores Bob: “Leave Biden alone!” Bob proves incapable. ... Democrats' surprisingly good Senate race poll numbers ... Mickey: Immigration numbers are climbing, but the media isn't covering it ... The downsides of framing US foreign policy as a “struggle against autocracy” ... How courageous was Pence on January 6? ... Did Trump both plan and fan the violence on January 6? ... Mickey: Trump and DeSantis are neck and neck as 2024 prospects ... Will Biden lift Trump-era tariffs on China? ... Bob: Ukraine may soon run out of ammo for its Soviet-era artillery ... Parrot Room preview: Exciting child tax credit news, Jeffrey Epstein news, a new angle on the Dave Weigel affair, Stanford eliminates fun, a deep dive into Bob's views on consciousness, the dating habits of Richard Spencer, the US Open, Bob pummels an NYT headline, the Proud Boys, and Kurt Gödel ...

Kurt Gödel's - Incompleteness Theorems - In Our Time GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM THE INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB PODCAST We Search the Web for the Best Intellectual Dark Web Podcasts, Lectures and Videos that can be understood by merely listening to save YOUR time. Then we make those Intellectual Dark Web Episodes available on Spotify and downloadable. IMPORTANT! GET THE MAIN WORKS OF HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU / MACHIAVELLI AND THE US CONSTITUTION BOUND TOGETHER IN JUST ONE PRACTICAL BOOK: ||| MACHIAVELLI https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/niccolo-machiavelli-and-john-locke-and-thomas-hobbes-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-and-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-69m6we.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716844508&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr || ROUSSEAU https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jean-jacques-rousseau-and-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-the-social-contract-1762-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-782nvr.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716893407&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr | Thank You Dearly For ANY Support! And God Bless You.

#Logos #LogosRising #Christianity In this stream I am joined by Jay Dyer to discuss the problem of circularity as it relates to foundationalism, worldviews, and why it is so important concerning Christian apologetics. We will be hitting on everything from induction (Hume & Kant), the work of Thomas Kuhn, Willard Quine, and Kurt Gödel, as well revelation and the coherency theory of truth. Make sure to check it out and let me know what you think. God bless Intro Music Follow Keynan Here: https://linktr.ee/keynanrwils b-dibe's Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/b-dibeSuperchat Here https://streamlabs.com/churchoftheeternallogosRokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharryWebsite: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com GAB: https://gab.com/dpharrySupport COTEL with Crypto!Bitcoin: 3QNWpM2qLGfaZ2nUXNDRnwV21UUiaBKVsyEthereum: 0x0b87E0494117C0adbC45F9F2c099489079d6F7DaLitecoin: MKATh5kwTdiZnPE5Ehr88Yg4KW99Zf7k8d If you enjoy this production, feel compelled, or appreciate my other videos, please support me through my website memberships (www.davidpatrickharry.com) or donate directly by PayPal or crypto! Any contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Logos Subscription Membership: http://davidpatrickharry.com/register/ Venmo: @cotel - https://account.venmo.com/u/cotel PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Donations: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com/donate/PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharryOdysee: https://odysee.com/@ChurchoftheEternalLogos:dGAB: https://gab.com/dpharryTelegram: https://t.me/eternallogosMinds: https://www.minds.com/DpharryBitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/W10R...DLive: https://dlive.tv/The_Eternal_LogosInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/dpharry/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/eternal_logos

'Enlightenment Now' author Steven Pinker speaks with Quillette podcast host Jonathan Kay about his newly published book, 'Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters'